Category Archives: euthanasia

Bioethicists: Conscientious objectors to euthanasia and abortion should be banned from medical schools

Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:27:34 +0000


Two bioethicists — UK professor Julian Savulescu and Canadian professor Udo Schuklenk — are urging that medical schools not admit prospective students who object to abortion and euthanasia.


Julian Savulescu is director of the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, UK, and editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics; Udo Schuklenk is the Ontario research chair in bioethics at Canada’s Queen’s University, and editor of the journal Bioethics.

In a co-authored article titled, “Doctors Have no Right to Refuse Medical Assistance in Dying, Abortion or Contraception,” published by the journal Bioethics on Sept. 22, 2016, Savulescu and Schuklenk maintain that:

  • Patients’ have an absolute right to abortion and to euthanasia or “assisted dying”.
  • The problem is that there are doctors who conscientiously object.
  • These doctors are respected for their “integrity” and given the prerogative not be involved in providing patients with abortion, artificial contraceptives, and euthanasia.
  • Physicians who refuse to abort and euthanize should be punished or even fired.
  • Conscientious objectors should be barred from admission into medical schools.

Savulescu and Schuklenk write in the “Abstract” of their article:

“[T]here should be better protections for patients from doctors’ personal values and there should be more severe restrictions on the right to conscientious objection, particularly in relation to assisted dying. We argue that eligible patients could be guaranteed access to medical services that are subject to conscientious objections by: (1) removing a right to conscientious objection; (2) selecting candidates into relevant medical specialities or general practice who do not have objections; (3) demonopolizing the provision of these services away from the medical profession.

Some points made in their journal article by these two toxic men who actually pretend they are bioethicists:

(1) Anti-Christian:

Without naming it, Savulescu and Schuklenk blame Christianity — which they refer to only as “organized religion” — for the objection to abortion and euthanasia. As they put it:

“The more religious a society is, the more religious values are imposed on people. Many of the conscientious objection protections we are grappling with today were written into constitutional arrangements in times gone by when the influence of churches was significantly more powerful than it is today. In strongly Christian societies, like Ireland, abortion remains illegal…. [Atheists] Richard Dawkins got it right, when he noted, ‘religion is not simply vicars giving tea parties. There are evil consequences.’”

(2) Doctors should be denied the right to be a conscientious objector to abortion, euthanasia, and artificial contraception:

“Enlightened, progressive secular countries like Sweden, have labour laws in line with our arguments. Sweden provides no legal right of employees to conscientious objection. Employees could be sacked for failing to provide legal services under labour law. The same holds true, for instance, for Finland…. These countries have resolutely prioritised patient access to care over the protection of doctors’ idiosyncratic moral convictions with regard to these services. Other countries ought to follow Sweden and Finland…. Conscientious refusal to provide contraception is common and mistakenly supported by medical boards and medical associations…. For religious GPs, obstetricians and pharmacists to refuse to provide the oral contraceptive pill is simply unprofessional. There is no requirement for a healthcare system to accommodate unprofessional behaviour…. If a professional norm [conscientious objection] is no longer fit for purpose, it should be changed.”

(3) Doctors who are conscientious objectors should be punished or perhaps fired:

“Doctors who did behave like this would be acting with a gross lack of professionalism and would therefore be subject to censure and appropriate remedies by their professional, statutory bodies…. [I]f society thinks contraception, abortion and assistance in dying are important, it should select people prepared to do them, not people whose values preclude them from participating. Equally, people not prepared to participate in such expected courses of action should not join professions tasked by society with the provision of such services.”

(4) Medical schools should deny admission to conscientious objectors:

“Therefore, even if we did not change the system for those already practising medicine, given that there is an oversupply of people capable and willing to become medical professionals, we should select those willing to provide the full scope of professional services, and those who are most capable. Medical schools and training programmes should carefully outline the nature of the job and screen for conscientious objection where it is relevant to job performance. Requirements of the job should be written into the contract.

(5) Abolish medical doctors’ monopoly on medical care by licensing non-physicians to perform abortion and euthanasia:

“Finally, if conscientious objection continues to be tolerated in medicine and results in treatment denial, alternative ways of guaranteeing reasonable and fair access to these goods ought to be provided. One way of doing this is to de-monopolize the provision of the relevant service. If the quality of such a service could match that provided by medical professionals, and sufficient supply could be ensured, then this would be a viable alternative. This would require new training, selection, regulatory and oversight procedures, which would be cumbersome and expensive. But there is no reason why only doctors could competently provide, for example, contraception, abortion or assisted dying services.”

(6) Conscientious objector doctors are like the Nazis:

“Part of the force behind respecting conscientious objection is a common commitment to ethical relativism: if that is what someone believes, then they are right to believe it, and that alone makes it a kind of truth…. But ethical relativism is practically ethical nihilism. If one accepted ethical relativism, the holocaust was, from the Nazi’s perspective, right.”

Lastly, I find it curious that Savulescu and Schuklenk, with degrees in medicine, cannot distinguish between “reign” and “rein”.

To “reign” is to be a sovereign or monarch; to “rein” is to curb. In their article, Savulescu and Schuklenk write that secular doctors who are conscientious objectors “ought to reign in their values too”.

Tsk, tsk.

H/t National Post

To sign a petition to support the Life at Conception Act, click here.


Please follow and like us:

Netherlands joins growing list of countries with presumed consent for organ donation

Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:07:39 +0000


There’s an increasing drumbeat for us to donate our organs.

Two days ago, the Netherlands took an important step toward increasing the number of organ donors when the lower house of parliament approved a bill for “presumed consent” of organ donation.

Doctors preparing for organ transplant (Photo by Keith Bedford/Reuters)

Doctors preparing for organ transplant (Photo by Keith Bedford/Reuters)

Organ donation is when a person allows healthy transplantable organs and tissues to be removed, either after death or while the donor is alive, and transplanted into another person.

There are two types of organ-donation consent:

  1. Explicit consent, also called “opt in” consent, refers to the donor giving explicit, direct consent through proper registration depending on the country. In the U.S., for example, many states enable you to state you’re an organ donor on your driver’s license.
  2. Presumed consent, also called “opt in,” does not need direct consent from the donor or the next of kin. Instead, it is presumed that anyone who has not explicitly refused is a donor.

In the case of the Netherlands, as reported by RT, on September 13, 2016, a “yes, unless” bill for presumed consent was narrowly approved by a 75-74 vote in the lower house of parliament. If approved by the upper house and passed into law, every single Dutch citizen would be put on the organ donation list, unless they explicitly request otherwise.

Obviously, the presumed consent method harvests more organ donation. As an example, Germany, which uses an opt-in explicit consent system, has an organ donation consent rate of 12%, whereas nearby Austria, a country with a very similar culture, uses an opt-out presumed consent system and thus has a consent rate of 99.98%.

Currently, the United States and the United Kingdom require explicit consent for organ donation, but there’s a movement to change it to presumed consent. Not all of the UK operates on explicit consent: In December 2015, Wales switched to presumed consent — a move that was expected to increase the amount of donors by 25%. Under the new policy, people over the age of 18 who have lived in Wales for more than 12 months and die in Wales are automatically considered organ donors, unless they have specifically opted out.

There is a lucrative international market for transplantable organs. In the case of China, we have compelling evidence and testimonies  that government officials collude with hospitals to provide on-order transplantable organs from executed prisoners. (See Wikipedia)

See also:



Please follow and like us:

Don't waste your money: Hollyweird movie "Me Before You" isn't "romantic"

The Hollyweird movie, Me Before You, recently opened and is described as a “romantic drama” film. The movie is based on the novel of the same name by author Jojo Moyes, who is an English journalist and romance novelist.

Author Jojo Moyes

Author Jojo Moyes

According to Life News, the movie stars Emilia Clarke as Lou Clark, a woman who accepts a job as caregiver for young quadriplegic Will Traynor (Sam Claflin). Billed as a romantic comedy, the film shows the two falling in love and ends with Will choosing death before a life with Lou. While disability activists and most media reviewers slammed the plot, some critics (from AP to Vanity Fair) still praised and cried over the “romantic” film that they described as a “mixture of classic romantic movies of the past.”
You can read the whole movie plot (with spoilers) here at Life News.
Wikipedia describes the controversy surrounding this film: “The film has suffered a backlash from many people in the disabled community due to what they perceive as an underlying message that people with disabilities are a burden on their families and careers, and claim the film promotes the view that people are better off dead than disabled. They view the film as advocating suicide so that their loved ones can “live boldly”. The #MeBeforeEuthanasia backlash has been led by celebrities with disabilities; Liz Carr, Penny Pepper, and Cherylee Houston.
This hasn’t stopped the media from promoting this “romance” and human euthanasia story.

Life News notes the reactions of some in the media:
“As Vanity Fair critic Richard Lawson reviewed the “pleasant and sad little movie” containing “wit and style,” he argued that assisted suicide was the film’s greatest strength.”
“For Rolling Stone, movie critic Peter Travers wrote about the “four-hankie tearjerker.” While he accused the film of being a “sob story that will go down easy at the box office,” he argued that “you can’t blame audiences too much for being seduced by two shining young stars in a movie romance that hits the spot, bitter and sweet.”
“Even feminist site Bustle recommended bringing tissues to the theater. Writer Olivia Truffaut-Wong couldn’t gush enough over the film. “If you don’t leave Me Before You with red eyes and a sniffling nose, then either you hate crying in public, or you weren’t paying attention during the movie,” she began before arguing that “the movie is probably best described as a mixture of classic romantic movies of the past.”
Another Hollyweird movie I will not be seeing.

Please follow and like us:

Medical facilities are killing non-terminally ill patients by withholding food & water

It’s bad enough that euthanasia of the terminally-ill is now legal in states like Oregon and California, a hospital and a hospice are deliberately killing non-terminally ill patients by withholding food and water, à la what they did to Terri Schiavo.
culture of death
The following is a June 6 email from Life Legal Defense Foundation:

Life Legal received two distressing phone calls on Sunday.
One was from the niece of an elderly woman who is in the hospital following an injury. The woman has slight dementia, but is able to communicate. The hospital decided it would no longer treat her, as care was “futile” because of the woman’s dementia. The woman’s niece tried to get a court order to keep her aunt alive, but the judge refused—and slandered the niece’s Catholic faith in the process. Yesterday, the hospital withdrew food and hydration from the woman.
Did you know that dementia is considered a terminal illness? And that food and hydration are considered “medical care” that can be withdrawn if a physician believes your condition won’t improve over time? In this case, the woman’s dementia is not severe—she still recognizes her niece and the hospital staff—yet because it will likely not get better, her doctors sentenced her to an agonizing death.
The second call was from the boyfriend of a 30-year-old woman who suffered a brain injury after she went into cardiac arrest. She is in a hospice facility that has not given her any nutrition for over a week. A few days ago, she started talking! She said that she is hungry and is asking for food. She is able to pull herself up and move her legs. She sings along to her favorite songs. Yet, the hospice refuses to feed her and is now giving her morphine because she tried to get out of bed.
We have calls out to local attorneys to help this young woman. Please pray that someone will be able to intervene tomorrow!

H/t California Catholic

Please follow and like us:

TV star calls for children with Down’s syndrome to be put down

What a vile creature.

Talk about a pointless life...

Talk about a pointless life…

The Sun: A former  TV star has sparked outrage after posting a vile Facebook post claiming children with Down’s syndrome should be “put down”.
Ursula Presgrave, who appeared on BBC3 show The Call Centre last year, wrote: “Anyone born with down syndrome should be put down, it’s just cruel to let them lead a pointless life of a vegetable.”
The hateful status, posted on Sunday evening, received more than 1,000 comments from people calling her “vile” and “sick”.
One mum wrote: “My son has Down’s syndrome and is three but he is more of a person than you will ever be sweetheart. What goes around comes around and I hope your karma is terrible. Shame on you.”
Presgrave, from Swansea, has caused uproar on social media in the past after she posted a disgusting status about missing child Madeline McCann.
Instead of apologising for her cruel words, Presgrave responded by saying things like “attempting to give a f***” and posted pictures mocking children with Down’s syndrome.
Facebook has since removed the post.

Please follow and like us:

Canadian doctors to get euthanasia kits

This December, Quebec will become the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow competent adults experiencing intolerable suffering at the end of life to request “medical aid in dying,” aka physician-assisted suicide, aka euthanasia.
Bill 52 allows doctors to administer lethal injections to mentally fit patients suffering an incurable illness who are in constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain, in an advanced state of irreversible decline. and be at the end of life.
Hippocratic Oath
Sharon Kirkey reports for National Post, Aug. 28, 2015, that Quebec doctors will soon be given standardized kits with which to end the lives of patients seeking euthanasia, along with detailed instructions as the province prepares to usher in legalized aid in dying. The euthanasia patient-killing kit will include:

  • A sedative to calm the patient
  • A drug to induce a deep coma
  • A drug to induce cardiorespiratory arrest (two sets of each drug to provide a backup in case of complications)
  • Syringes
  • Needles in different calibre sizes
  • IV tubing
  • IV solutions

The Collège des médecins du Québec has developed a new guideline for doctors unlike any in the history of Canadian medicine: a step-by-step guide to follow before, during and after administering euthanasia to killing an eligible patient, including the type of drugs to be used, the dose, the injection site and what to do in the event of complications. The guideline, developed in collaboration with the Order of Pharmacists of Quebec and the Order of Nurses of Quebec, will be available to doctors, nurses and other health professionals on a secure area of the college’s website because, according to college secretary Dr. Yves Robert, “We don’t want these recipes made too easily available to everyone.”

Robert insists, “It is clearly not euthanasia on demand. It is clearly not that.”

In February, the Supreme Court of Canada threw out the century-old Criminal Code prohibitions against “physician-assisted death.” In so doing, legal experts say the court opened the door to both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide — where the doctor writes a prescription for a life-ending overdose the patient then takes himself.
Modeled on a 3-phased formula used in the Netherlands, the Quebec guideline could become a model for all of Canada. The three steps are:

  1. First, a benzodiazepine, a type of sedative, would be injected to help control anxiety and “help calm the patient,” Robert said.
  2. Next, a barbiturate drug would be injected to induce a coma.
  3. The third step would be a neuromuscular block, a derivative of curare that acts on the respiratory muscles to cause cardio-respiratory arrest, i. e., the person’s heart and lungs will cease functioning.

People requesting euthanasia can stop the processes at any time, up until the last moment before the loss of consciousness. The whole process, from beginning to death, “would probably take something around 15 minutes,” Robert said.
See also:


Please follow and like us:

Why you should be concerned that the largest U.S. nursing association endorsed socialist pro-euthanasia Bernie Sanders for President

Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:51:46 +0000


On August 10, 2015, the 185,000-member National Nurses United endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) for the presidency at a “Brunch with Bernie” event at union headquarters in Oakland, California.

National Nurses United endorses Bernie Sanders

The National Nurses United (NNU) is the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in the United States. NNU was founded in December 2009 by combining three nursing organizations (California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, United American Nurses, and Massachusetts Nurses Association) into one, for the express purpose of giving registered nurses a national voice and organizing power.

Politico writes that “The Sanders endorsement isn’t a surprise: The NNU has long been a militant outlier among labor unions. It opposed the Affordable Care Act because it wasn’t single-payer, and in 2000 its predecessor union, the California Nurses Association, endorsed Ralph Nader over Al Gore for president.”

That being said, the fact that the largest professional association of nurses in America has endorsed Sanders for the presidency should be a cause for concern to all Americans, most of whom will be hospitalized at some point in our lives, especially when we become old and feeble. By their endorsement, the National Nurses United is signaling their approval of Sanders’ political positions, which include the absolute right to abort and euthanasia

nurses endorse Bernie Sanders for president

Below is a list of information I’ve compiled on Bernie Sanders. As you read it, just remember that the largest nurses’ association in America wants this man to be president.


  1. Bernie Sanders will be 74 years old on Sept. 8.
  2. Married to Jane Driscoll, his second wife, Sanders has an out-of-wedlock son, Levi, from a relationship he had between marriage #1 and marriage #2.
  3. Sanders’ father was a Jew who immigrated from Poland; his mother was born of two New York Jews. Sanders has said he is “proud to be Jewish”, but “not particularly religious.”

Political Ideology

  1. Sanders is an Independent and calls himself a “democratic socialist”. Semantics aside, Sanders is an outright socialist since his student days at the University of Chicago when he joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the official youth arm of the Socialist Party of America.
  2. Though not religious, Sanders admires Pope Francis, another socialist, for the latter’s stance on “economic issues,” referring to Bergoglio’s call for redistribution of wealth by the state and by a new global authority.

Stance on Issues

  1. Sanders is a long-time supporter of homosexual marriage, before it became fashionable. Vermont is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2009.
  2. He supports Obama’s HHS mandate: Sanders wants government to force all health care insurance, including religious groups, to provide free birth control, including contraceptives that are abortifacients.
  3. If you like big government, you’ll like Sanders. He wants a Big Government On Steroids: free college tuition and an expansion of our already insolvent entitlement programs. He writes on his website: “Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition programs, we should be expanding these programs.”
  4. Obamacare isn’t enough for Sanders. He wants a single-payer, i.e., government-run healthcare system.
  5. Sanders favors gun control, including a ban on assault weapons.
  6. Sanders favors a “path to citizenship” for illegals (whatever that means), but is a skeptic on both illegal and legal immigration, believing that open borders will drive down wages and constitute a threat to American jobs.
  7. Sanders is rabidly pro-abortion:
    1. He wants unrestricted late-term or partial-birth abortion, i.e., abortion in the 3rd trimester.
    2. He favors letting minors cross states to get an abortion.
    3. He supports US AID “family planning” abortion and UN funding for abortion in “Third World” countries.
    4. He voted no on a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime.
    5. He supports human embryonic stem cell research and expanding the research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
    6. Given the above (A-E), it is not surprising that Sanders is rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a perfect pro-abortion voting record.
  8. Sanders supports euthanasia— assisted suicide for terminally-ill patients. European countries have shown that physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill opens the door to horrific abuses. See “Belgium’s culture of death: Thousands are euthanized without their consent” and “Belgium considering new euthanasia law FOR KIDS“. Then there are the financial incentives for euthanasia. See “Euthanasia on the rise in American due to lucrative organ-harvesting“.

Sources: Wikipedia; On the Issues; Mother Jones; I Side With

That nurses, who are charged with caring for us when we’re the most vulnerable, have so little regard and respect for the preciousness of life as to endorse a man who is rabidly pro-abort and supports euthanasia, is a frightening thought.


Please follow and like us:

Princeton ethicist: it's 'reasonable' to kill disabled newborn babies

Campus Reform: Princeton professor and animal rights activist Peter Singer argued in a radio interview that it is “reasonable” for healthcare providers, insurance companies, and government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid to kill mentally disabled babies.
Singer appeared on the Aaron Klein Investigative Radio show to discuss his latest book, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.
Klein asked Singer—who served as a task force coordinator on President Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign—if he believes that Obamacare will lead to healthcare rationing in the United States, specifically in relation to “disabled” babies. Singer’s answer? It already has.
For example, Singer said, doctors routinely end the life of babies born with brain hemorrhages. “If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother… doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.”

Peter Singer, bioethicist

Peter Singer, bioethicist

Doctors who kill disabled babies, Singer explains, are likely “just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after.”
This is not a new position for Professor Singer; on his faculty page on Princeton’s website, Singer argues that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” “A normal newborn baby has no sense of the future,” Singer writes, “and therefore is not a person.”
messed up
Similarly, in his 1979 book Practical Ethics, Singer claims that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” Elsewhere in Practical Ethics, the bioethics professor claims that “[n]o infant—disabled or not—has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities.”
However, while Singer believes infants have little (if any) right to life, he has devoted much of his life to making the exact opposite argument with regard to chimpanzees and other non-human animals.
In 1975, Singer wrote his best-selling book Animal Liberation, which helped him earn a spot on TIME Magazine’s 2005 list of the world’s 100 most influential people. In Animal Liberation, Singer argued that “humans and animals are equal in the sense that the fact that a being is human does not mean that we should give the interests of that being preference over the similar interests of other beings. That would be speciesism.”
In 1993, Singer co-founded “The Great Ape Project,” which defines itself as “an international movement that aims to defend the rights of non-human great primates.” These rights, Singer explains in a 2006 article, include “life [and] liberty.” Singer bases his reasoning on “ the principle of equal consideration of interests,” which he says demands that humans give equal consideration to “non-human animals.” Those who “give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species,” Singer says, are “speciesists.”
While “non-human great primates” have a “right” to life, that same right—according to Singer—does not extend to human infants. In a 2012 op-ed defending abortion, Singer claimed that “membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.”
Singer takes the argument one step further in “Taking Life: Humans” by arguing that if killing a “haemophiliac infant” meant that the infant’s parents could have another child in his place, it would “be right to kill him.”
Most people, Singer argued, would say “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”
However, not all members of the Princeton community share Singer’s views towards infanticide. “Peter Singer’s views demonstrate the logical extreme to which a view of personhood based on some developed capability or trait must carry us,” Princeton junior Christine Smith told Campus Reform.
“When personhood is no longer defined by our innate humanity or our intrinsic value, then we necessarily approach a view that embraces the killing of seriously disabled, or even merely unwanted, infants,” she said. While Peter Singer’s views are obviously idiosyncratic, it is important to take them seriously because they reveal the inherent problem of trying to define certain categories of humans as more valuable or more protected than others.”
“[W]e are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants,” Singer declared on Sunday. “And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens.”

Please follow and like us:

1/3 of Dutch physicians are willing to kill the mentally ill

Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:54:02 +0000


The Netherlands

Jane Collingwood reports for PsychCentral, April 15, 2015, that according to a survey by the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research in Amsterdam, as many as a third of medical doctors in the Netherlands are prepared to euthanize (“physician-assisted suicide”) people who are not afflicted with a terminal illness, but are merely mentally ill.

The survey was undertaken in 2011-2012 by Dr. Eva Bolt and colleagues at the EMGO Institute. They sent questionnaires to 2,269 randomly selected general practitioners (family doctors) and specialists in elderly care, cardiology, respiratory medicine, intensive care, neurology, and internal medicine, who were asked if they had ever helped a patient who was suffering with cancer, another physical disease, a mental illness, dementia, or without a severe physical disease but was “tired of living” to die. 1,456 (or 64%) of the 2,269 completed the survey.

The study found that:

  • A large majority (86%) of those who had completed the survey indicated they would consider “helping” a patient to die.
  • 77% (and more than 90% of GPs or family doctors) had been asked at least once for help to die.
  • 6 out of 10 doctors had actually helped a patient to die:
    • 56% had helped a cancer patient to die.
    • 31% had helped euthanize patients with a non-cancer physical disease.
    • 7% had helped euthanize a patient who did not have cancer or another severe physical illness.
  • As many as 34% of medical doctors who took the survey said they would consider helping a mentally-ill patient to die.
  • That percentage increased to 40% for patients with early-stage dementia. Strangely, the percentage of doctors who would consider euthanizing patients with late-stage dementia was lower — at 33%.
  • As many as one in five (18%) doctors said they are prepared to euthanize someone who is not ill but is “tired of living.”

Full results of the survey are published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

The current situation in The Netherlands is that euthanasia or assisted suicide is legally permissible “for those whose suffering is psychiatric/psychological in nature.” The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act, effective April 1, 2002, legalizes euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) under very specific circumstances. Several stringent conditions must be fulfilled including that “the patient’s suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement.”

A team of researchers at Netherlands’ Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre had explored the legal definition of “unbearable suffering,” but concluded that “Unbearable suffering is difficult to assess, so evaluation of the current knowledge of unbearable suffering is needed in the ongoing debate about the conditions on which EAS can be approved.” So the researchers proposed their own definition for “unbearable suffering” in the context of a request for a physician-assisted suicide to mean “a profoundly personal experience of an actual or perceived impending threat to the integrity or life of the person, which has a significant duration and a central place in the person’s mind.”

Blah, blah, blah.

Culture of Death by Wesley J. Smith

According to Wesley J. Smith, J.D., writing for Life News, as many as 42 mentally ill patients and nearly 100 early-stage dementia patients were euthanized in the Netherlands in the most recent year for which statistics are available. The killings were justified by the “assisting” psychiatrists as a “liberation” for the patient and the doctors.

Those numbers are the ones reported. How many were killed surreptitiously cannot be known.


Please follow and like us:

Making The Affordable Care Act more Affordable: Obama architect says we shouldn't live beyond 75

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel



No mention of his interest as chief architect of Obamacare

author-imageby JEROME R. CORSI
NEW YORK – Missing in The Atlantic magazine’s recent presentation of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s column declaring his desire to die at age 75 is the fact that he is a chief architect of Obamacare, with a vested interest in curbing life expectancy in a system of limited resources that forces moral decisions concerning who will receive health care and who will not…

Sound of screeching brakes!!!!
In case you didn’t connect the dots, this doctor (Rahm Emanuel’s brother) is an author of ObamaCare and wants us to DIE AT 75!!!!!!!!

This article is filled with references to the abuse Sarah Palin received for warning us about Death Panels. It demonstrates the DoubleSpeak of the Obama administration, and its reliance on euphemistic names to cover up its true intentions. 
But for me, one of the most chilling parts of the article is the happy-gram Dr. Emanuel used to illustrate his reason for ridding society of those who have exhausted their usefulness. Take a look, and see what I mean. 

…Emanuel paints a dismal picture of the elderly, writing: “Even if we aren’t demented, our mental functioning deteriorates as we grow older. Age-associated declines in mental-processing speed, working and long-term memory, and problem-solving are well established. Conversely, distractibility increases. We cannot focus and stay with a project as well as we could when we were young. As we move slower with age, we also think slower.”
By age 75, Emanuel figures that “creativity, originality, and productivity are pretty much gone for the vast, vast majority of us.”
He produced the following chart to make his point:

So listen up, all you older types. The president and his “men” want you to do the right thing, and die at 75. And whatever you do, DON’T VOTE.
~ TD

Please follow and like us: